A lot people think Grant Morrisons and Joss Whedon were some of best writers for the X-Men. I think they were pretty much overrated. While Morrisons portray Emma Frost really well, the best I have seen from her character so far. I felt he had no understanding of Cyclops and Jean Grey marriage and I didn't think he understood Cylcops character at all and he made him look like a total jerk as well. Then Whedon, while the portrayal of the characters was written well, like the interactions with kitty and Emma, they were really good. The stories he wrote was nothing really special and while he return Colossus, he sent Kitty packing, make sense much.

So are they overrated, are they actually better writers, then the writers from the 80's and the early-mid 90's. How many of you think so?

No, they were just that good.

I also have to agree that Claremont was my favorite X-Men writer. And, I also didn't appreciate Morrison turning Cyclops into such a jerk. I agree that he did not have a great grasp on Scott-Jean's marriage.

Personally, no, I don't think either writer is overrated. Morrison did something completely different with the X-Men. He changed the whole thought processing behind it. He tackled bigger ideas and explored further. I think he should be highly credited for taking the X-Men somewhere they had never been, and made them shine. As for Whedon, he did the opposite nearly. In my opinion, Whedon focused very carefully on the characters primarily, which is my favourite type of writing. One where the characters come first. Because if the characters are written well, if their portrayals make sense, if it all fits, then everything else will form around it.

@cattlebattle:

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay

My guess is he was trying to advance the character. Play on some other factors. I see the X-Men as the perfect characters to be dealing with such things, as the are the poster-"boys" for diversity, especially during Grant's run where he was really stretching out the characters and the way they reacted and sat with each other.

Morrison took an approach that I think was kind of necessary. The X-Men writers, post-Claremont, spent too much time mining Clarmont's foundation for story material & character development. The series became a caricature of itself, & devolved into just another super-team series. Morrison came to the series, bold as brass, & re-set the focus. I think it's kind of telling that he chose Professor X, Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, & Wolverine as his X-Men. He largely avoids the Claremont era... & inevitable comparisons... by featuring the 60's era X-Men, with Wolverine & The White Queen standing in for Angel & Iceman. It ends up coming across as an almost "John Byrne Back to Basics" return to the X-Men's roots. Once again, stories revolve around seeking out new mutants. The school becomes much more prominent in the story lines. Magneto is an absolute villain, no shades of grey. It's the Silver Age X-Men as seen through Morrison's twisted mirror. Saying his run is overrated is a bit unjust. People continue to talk about it because it stood out. It was different. It was fresh. It was weird. It introduced big ideas, which the series was fresh out of. Morrison's run had it's flaws, but it was never boring.

In contrast, Whedon wrote the characters right. For the first time, in years, Cyclops sounded like Cyclops. Kitty sounded like Kitty. Too many writers come up with a "take" on the character, as I think Morrison did, as opposed to actually writing the established character. There's really no excuse for not writing the character as they have been written, especially when said characters are as well defined as the X-Men are. Morrison is an idea man. His stories are largely more important than the characters within them. Whedon though is big on character, & it shows in his run. Whedon's X-Men felt like Claremont's X-Men. Personally, I wasn't impressed with Whedon's stories. They were okay. Not particularly memorable, but serviceable. His character moments, though, are truly wonderful.

Had X-Men been a consistently awesome series since Claremont's departure, Morrison & Whedon's runs might have gone unnoticed. They would have been what the fans had come to expect from the X-men title. Just more of the same. That they stand out... to this day... speaks to a malaise in fan's regard for the series. They were bored with it. Morrison woke them up with a 2x4 smack to the brain pan. Whedon reminded them why they loved the characters in the first place. They left the X-Men in a better place than where they found it. I think both men deserve the credit they get.

@cattlebattle said:

@Hawkeye446 said:

@cattlebattle:

Grant Morrison is over rated all the time IMO..he is a great writer, but his X-men run hit some stale notes.....I still don't understand what was with the attempt to make Beast gay

My guess is he was trying to advance the character. Play on some other factors. I see the X-Men as the perfect characters to be dealing with such things, as the are the poster-"boys" for diversity, especially during Grant's run where he was really stretching out the characters and the way they reacted and sat with each other.

I agree with what you say, although I think when they try to advance characters with subtle contradictory factors It just comes off more like shock value then it does crafty writing, I mean I am no writer, so I always feel I have no right making criticisms like these, I get what your saying about them being poster boys, but I think that is a very long running theme throughout the X-men, especially emphasized with Morrisons run...that they are not perfect, like so many other super heroes that come off, you know, like squeaky clean boy scouts, The X-Men are far from this, including Beast. I have no problem with Beast being gay, I guess the I feel like that kind of came out of left field, I guess everyone else thought so due to him being paired up with Brand not to long after that

Oh yes, I agree. I was just trying to justify the decision in some way. I think you are right, for sure. To change a characters preferences, when it was never asserted beforehand can seem like lazy writing. But, I think in Grant's case, he had interpreted it that way. What I mean to say is, from what he knew of Beast, he thought it would be beneficial growth? Do you get what I mean? So as opposed to changing his orientation, he was trying to assert Hank as a better character by emphasising his orientation.

In other words, play true to Hank's personality and his personal view of the character. I think Morrison did that with most of the X-Men, mixed things up a bit with his own viewpoints, as one does.

@cattlebattle: When did he try to make beast gay

Oh, this isn't about the X-Men being overrated. nvm

I don't think that either writers were overrated. Like everyone was saying about Grant Morrison's run on X-Men, he brought something new to the table by putting the X-Men in situations they have never been in before and it was actually interesting seeing a X-Men series that focused so much on the X-Men being teachers, which was what I really enjoyed about Morrison's run was the fact that the X-Men are now the teachers and not the students.

Joss Whedon's run on "Astonishing X-Men" was probably my favorite series because he focused so much time on the characters and we get to actually feel how the characters were feeling during those situations. I especially loved the relationships that Joss Whedon wrote during "Astonishing X-Men," especially between Kitty and Colossus since there was so much depth in their relationship and it never felt like they were avoiding the possible conflicts in their relationship to make it work, but instead taking on that conflict and try to resolve it, which I barely see in newer X-Men comics.

I think what Chris Claremont, Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon all brought to the X-Men comics was that they focused so much on the characters' relationships and emotions about the situations rather than just skim through their emotions about the situations at hand and focusing on the characters was what made all three of these writers' runs so memorable. I really do enjoy writing where characters are the focus because I can actually relate so much with the characters.

@CATPANEXE said:

Whedon didn't have a run on Astonishing, Astonishing was Whedon's book. That's why no one else could live up to it. They were tasked with writing Whedon's writing on a book that was sold and bought for his writing while not being Whedon himself, and could never pull it off. It wasn't so much a matter of where he rated. It would be as if DC continued Dark Knight Return's but with a new writer. Despite how well they're writing was in quality or not, it still wouldn't be what the book was advertising. Marvel should have a had subset mini's for each individual writers version of X-Men rather than have them buoy off someone else namesake.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Marvel did all the creators that worked on that book a disservice by not at the very least renaming it.

@Rabbitearsblog: Excellent, excellent post.

@The Dark Huntress: Thanks!

@The Dark Huntress said:

No, they were just that good.

QFT.

@davelecave said:

@The Dark Huntress said:

No, they were just that good.

QFT.

TRIPLED.

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

@Wattup said:

I wish Alan Moore or Frank Miller.

Just no.

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

@Rabbitearsblog said:

@wavecrest said:

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

I loved Gifted and Unstoppable the best!

I'm in total agreement. My dad got me the Gifted trade paperback for christmas because I kept borrowing it from the library.

I think both Morrison and Whedon had good runs with the X-Men but like many comic book writers not everything they produce is gold and al their work when with X-Men was not great. I mean going back to Claremonts time he created some of he most memorable X-Men story lines ever but if you were to go over all the work he produced on during his run you would notice garbage along with the diamonds. I will say that many X-Men writers have no idea how to write Cyclops. He is reserved, not too excitable and understated in a lot of ways. Somehow over the years this became translated into him being wooden, stiff, and being of a jerk. I am not quite sure when that started but Morrison and Whedon pushed that idea further.

No, I think Claremont is overrated.

@Rabbitearsblog said:

@wavecrest said:

I don't know much about Morrison as a writer for X-men. I've read some other things and found them a bit overrated.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about Whedon's run on Astonishing X-men. Gifted was my first X-men story arch. It was my first non movie or X-men: Evolution to these characters. And because of that I look past all the flaws. I personally think that some parts were better then others. I like Gifted more then Dangerous, but Torn and Unstoppable were really good as well.

I loved Gifted and Unstoppable the best!

I'm in total agreement. My dad got me the Gifted trade paperback for christmas because I kept borrowing it from the library.